Friday, April 29, 2011

If there is one thing that should gets conservatives out to vote on Monday it is the threat of Jack Layton as PM.

Please remind everyone you know or run into over the next couple of days just how important it is to get out to the polls on Monday, and if you are having trouble convincing them just have them repeat the phrase " Jack Layton as Prime Minister" a couple of time for it to sink in.

Thursday, April 28, 2011

From Rosemary Barton with Layton on the campaign trail: Layton on cap-and-trade: will it increase gas prices? No.

He may be right in one aspect. The NDP plan won't JUST increase gas prices, it will increase the price on everything including home heating which he claims that he wants to reduce and is a major part of his platform.

Unbelievable.

Sorry Jack, but when business gets hit with any type of increase, taxes or otherwise, it gets passed on to their customers in the end, and someone who wants to be PM should know this and be honest enough to admit it.

Update: Jack Mintz has determined that the NDP policy will raise gas prices by $0.10/litre, rising by 2014 to an additional $0.18/litre.

Rumors were circulation before the start of the election that the Liberal Party of Canada was having trouble obtaining a bank loan to finance any possible upcoming election campaign and that some of the financially better off Liberal EDA's had to co-sign and provide 'collateral' in order for them to receive a bank loan.

I personally do not know the details or if any of that is true but it sort of makes sense looking at it from the perspective of any bank. They were being asked to loan money to a political party with fund-raising difficulties and who were behind in the polls, in order to fight an election that if they lost would cut off their prime source of income. ( Proposed Conservative plan to stop taxpayer funded party subsidies) When presented with the above it is easy to see why a bank would be looking for some sort of collateral before approving such a potentially risky loan.

If those rumours are true, I think it might be time for those EDA's that may have provided collateral for the Liberal Party to obtain a loan to start worrying.

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

It only took a full year, many emails, and finally the big stick of the CBC Ombudsman to make it so, but Scott Reid and CBC's Power and Politics have finally corrected an error made April 1st 2010.

The original statement:

"He (Kory Teneycke) along with that, sort of, you know, paid professional brigand of ah, of ah bloggers that work for the Conservative Party; those guys can mobilize a grassroots movement in the snap of a fingers......

I am writing with regard to your complaint April 15, 2010, and request May 6, 2010, for a review by this Office concerning remarks made on the CBC News Network program, Power & Politics, on April 1, 2010.

Let me first apologize for the time it has taken to conduct this review. When I assumed this role last November, I helped my predecessor deal with a substantial backlog. Work on this continues, but that is of little consolation to you. Too much time has passed in dealing with this, and I regret the manner in which the complaint has been processed. Thank you for your patience.

Since your complaint, CBC has updated its Journalistic Standards and Practices. Given that your complaint preceded the update, the previous policy will apply to your request.

REVIEW

The complainant wrote CBC News shortly after he heard commentator Scott Reid on the CBC News Network program, Power & Politics, on April 1, 2010.

Reid, a former senior Liberal Party aide who appeared with Conservative Jaime Watt on the regular Point of Order panel in the program, was discussing the ability ofConservative Party supporters to mobilize support. In an animated exchange, he indicated those bloggers were paid.

“He (Kory Teneckye), along with that, sort of, you know, paid professional brigand of ah, bloggers, that work for the Conservative Party — they can mobilize support in the snap of a finger,” Reid said in the taped segment. He wasn’t challenged by Watt in their debate.

The complainant wrote CBC News to dispute the assertion that the bloggers were paid by the Conservatives. The managing editor of CBC’s Parliamentary Bureau, Paul Hambleton, wrote back April 13, 2010 to acknowledge the error and to thank the complainant for setting the record straight.

The complainant pursued his concerns, indicating that the remark violated CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices in effect at the time.

The executive editor for CBC News, Esther Enkin, wrote the complainant April 21, 2010, to note Hambleton’s email. She said that CBC regretted the error. She also said she did not expect Reid to apologize but that he would correct his remarks when the subject of partisan blogs next came up in the segment of the program “at an early opportunity.”

CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices policy in effect at the time of the complaint included provisions relevant to correcting errors. It said CBC would not “hesitate to admit and correct an error when it is established that one has been made. To do otherwise or to defend a program exhibiting poor taste or unacceptable ethics or containing errors would lead inevitably to loss of credibility by the CBC.”
The policy noted that the senior officer in news and information, or his or her delegate, should be consulted to determine the nature and time of any correction.

The complainant said it was possible that the subject of partisan blogs might not come up “until 2015” and asked if it “would be reasonable to wait that long for the correction to be made.”

Reid has since corrected his statement on the program. He said April 21, 2011, that he had looked into the matter and found no evidence the bloggers were ever paid. He retracted his remarks and apologized. Host Evan Solomon also apologized on the program for taking this long.

CONCLUSION

Mistakes are made regularly in journalism. Academic studies indicate roughly one in two stories contain a factual error, a rate that hasn’t changed much over the decades despite better educated journalists and more sophisticated and familiar guest commentators.

Live television debate — even when it is taped without editing — often leads to spontaneous hyperbole or overstatement to try to make a point or to respond.

What has changed, and for the better, have been processes to identify and correct the record for the public. CBC has a rigorous policy of scrutinizing its work, accepting public review of it, and holding itself accountable through transparent mechanisms to demonstrate its will to be accurate and fair-minded.

Even when contracted commentators make an error, CBC’s approach has been to acknowledge that wrong was wrong and for the program in which they appeared to address the mistake promptly. Its policy of acknowledgment is a virtue in contributing to overall integrity and often a distinguishing and differentiating feature in broadcast news.

In this instance, the statement didn’t receive a quick fix. Obviously, any error left untended only becomes more problematic to correct. Even when efforts are made by programmers to address the initial mistake, some of its viewers will never know it was corrected.

In correspondence with the complainant, CBC acknowledged the error and indicated it would make mention of the issue when the subject next arose on the program. Rather than wait indefinitely for the next discussion on partisan blogs, the program could have more quickly fulfilled its standards and practices with a correction at the earliest opportunity.

I am satisfied there was no intent to avoid addressing the matter. There was an expectation the opportunity would arise soon, and when it didn’t, the correction slipped into the cracks. It is noteworthy that host Evan Solomon apologized on the air for the time it took to address the matter. The correction was made amid an election campaign, when attention on politics is high and the correction’s impact might be greatest.

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

The Liberals are in trouble in the 2011 campaign and just like 2006 and again in 2008 they have decided to go negative and again trot out the The Campaign of Fear™ in an effort to scare Canadians into not voting for a Conservative government.

It won't work this time either and the Liberals were advised years ago by one of their top strategists as to why. The advice rings even truer today.

(Warren Kinsella)

January 5th, 2006: "TO: LIBERAL CAMPAIGN BOSSES
FROM: YOUR REALLY GOOD PAL WARREN
RE: TOP SECRET AND SUPER CONFIDENTIAL STUFFDear guys: it won't work. Did last time, won't this time. Have a nice two weeks, and good luck in your return to the Liberian shipping industry.

...

As I related to a group of scary-smart U of T political science students last night, there are three reasons for this:

One, every Canadian who is not comatose understands that Harper can't form a majority government, even if he wants to, and he does. Paul Martin's top-notch handling of the Quebec file means federalism is hooped in la belle province for the forseeable future. The numbers for a majority aren't there. Folks know that.

Two, (Shameless Book Plug Alert) as noted in no less an authority than Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics, in order for an attack ad to work, it has to be factual or, at the very least, plausible. The Liberals' planned Harper Is Satan™ campaign is not plausible. Canadians have now had a couple years to see how Harper operates. He isn't neceessarily(sp) someone you'd cuddle with on the basement couch to watch 'Friends' reruns, but neither is any other politician. In this case, familiarity breeds a comfort level.

Three, as my sage pal John Wright opined a while ago, Canadians gathered around family Christmas/Hannukah tables at the end of last month and came to a collective decision: we want change, and if Harper's the only way to achieve that, so be it. Pass the cranberries.

-----

Kinsella was right and again later in the same year he said almost the same thing. This time in a more concise way, but just as true.

October 16th, 2006: "The problem is that Stephen Harper doesn’t really scare Canadians anymore, or possibly never did. That’s the Grits’ problem. "

But they didn't listen in '06, and again in '08. Why would they bother to listen in 2011?

Monday, April 25, 2011

This past Thursday evening at a local all candidates forum Mike Butler, the Liberal candidate for Edmonton-Millwoods-Beaumont, had some interesting things to say not only about his own leader but also about NDP leader Jack Layton as well.

Here is what Mike Butler had to say:

On Layton: "I love Jack Layton. I think he is a good guy, I think he is a solid guy."

On the Liberal Party and its leader: "The people are good, Michael Ignatieff is questionable sometimes", before telling an interesting story about how Ignatieff wanted an election much earlier while we were still in a recession, "Michael Ignatieff wanted an election but our party knew it was the wrong thing to do and that is why we didn't call an election."

Not sure what to make of that last part about the Liberal Party stopping Ignatieff from forcing an election during the height of the recession, but from Mr. Butler's other comments it appears that he is not a big supporter or fan of the appointed leader of his party. A posting found on Facebook also seems to confirm this: "... our jaw dropped when Mike Butler came to our table and during conversation he stated he doesn't like or support Iggy as leader of liberal party, that he is to American with his ideas!!! Our table was floored!!! Lol"

Was this a one off from a rogue Liberal candidate or the first of many more to come? My guess is that it is the latter but only time will tell; it is going to be an interesting final week of the 2011 campaign.

Saturday, April 23, 2011

I first spotted the "Butler Mobile" shortly after the writ was dropped but did not have a camera or cell phone with me so I was unable to get a picture and had not seen it since in-spite of putting on many kilometers in and around the riding. I had many people tell me that they had spotted it driving around or parked in various locations, including a church parking lot, but I was unable to find and photograph it until it showed up at a local all candidates forum* a couple of days ago.

Ladies and gentlemen I present to you the "Butler Mobile", a pictorial metaphor for the current state of the Liberal Party.

Broken down looking with an attempt to spruce it up using a little bit of Iggy and some duct tape.

*Stay tuned. I have to verify and confirm a couple of things but I will having something very interesting up in the next couple of days on what was said at that forum.

Friday, April 22, 2011

The Hastman campaign has filed an official complaint with Elections Canada alleging that 550 names on the Edmonton-Strathcona registered voters list are linked to addresses that don't exist or are invalid. It seems that many of these addresses are linked to businesses, including a gas station and industrial companies, an empty field, storage lockers and private mail boxes. "My team went through the entire voters list with a fine tooth comb and uncovered hundreds of illegitimate addresses," Hastman said. "It’s important that only valid addresses are included in the voters list."

And he is correct.

For those not aware: Edmonton Strathcona is currently the only non CPC riding in Alberta. It has been a political hot spot for some time and with the election has become a real political battlefield that I can guarantee you will show up on whatever channel you will be watching for election results May 2nd.

Spotted recently while door knocking in Edmonton Strathcona. The rare and elusive Liberal sign with the added bonus of it being in the same yard as a CPC sign!

On a more serious note: Here is what is happening on a daily basis to CPC signs in Edm Strathcona.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

We are all familiar with the concept of strategic voting where people don't vote for the candidate or party of their choice but rather vote against a candidate by choosing the candidate/party that is most likely to defeat them and cast their vote in that direction. During the last few elections most strategic voting campaigns have been directed at the conservatives in an effort to stop them from getting a majority but that was then and this is now.

With the recent NDP surge in the polls and particularly in Quebec I have to ask the following: How many Liberals are now going to support the Conservative Party in an effort to stop the NDP from gaining more seats than the Liberals and becoming the official opposition? (which is now a distinct possibility)

I know some Liberals will laugh at the suggestion of ever supporting conservatives but they should ask themselves what would happen to the Liberal Party of Canada if Jack Layton and the NDP ever became the leader of the official opposition in Canada.

Short answer: It would be all over for the LPC a party. Irrelevancy does that.

November 29th 2008: The NDP hold a conference call telling their MPs about the secret coalition talks with the Liberals and Bloc.

In the taped conversation (highlights below in video, with complete version available here. pt1 and pt 2) Jack Layton speaks about the secret negotiations with the Liberals and the Bloc on a coalition and the NDP role. Calling it a "catalytic role actually" and bragging about how the NDP were the "glue" for all of this and how they had "prepared for the opportunity" and because they had made those preparations early they were ready when an opportunity came up.

Of note are the following quotes from Jack Layton:

"This whole thing would not have happened if the moves hadn't been made with the Bloc to lock them in early." "The first part was done a long time ago, um I won't go into details."

To my knowledge Jack Layton has NEVER stated exactly when those negotiations with the Bloc first started and I am unsure if he was even specifically asked that question by our MSM at any time since Nov 2008. Thomas Mulcair at the time stated that his party started talking with the Bloc only after the government's Nov. 19 Throne Speech, but if you listen to Layton's words it seems clear that these negotiations had begun more than just one week (The first part was done a long time ago) before this conference call occurred and for all we know the talks could have started 1 month earlier during the election campaign itself.

So here we are 2 1/2 yrs later and in another election campaign where the MSM are following the leaders across the country and covering their every word. Isn't it about time that they asked Jack Layton to come clean on the 2008 negotiation time-line details and more importantly ask ALL of the leaders if ANY such negotiations ( by anyone within their respective parties) have occurred recently or are occurring at this time?

The MSM blew it on their coverage in 2008. Will they do the same thing in 2011?

Do your job and ask the damn questions that Canadians want to know about!

Ignatieff, like every other Liberal leader after Chretien, made a promise that the Liberals would not go negative and then he broke that promise, but more importantly Ignatieff was making that promise to Canadians AFTER the attack ad strategy was planned.

Further update: The geniuses at the Liberal Party have decided to release the link to where they got the quote from, but in doing so show that they KNEW it was a lie. (BTW the LPC used this quote and attributed it to the real author back in 2004, but today claim that they didn't know the truth)

I spoke too soon. The LPC have attempted to scrub the internet of their link to the page that released the link showing that they were lying.

Trying to keep up with the Liberal lies and attempts at cover-up are starting to confuse me.

Sunday, April 17, 2011

The Bloc loves instability in Ottawa and what could possibly create more instability than a Party Quebecois government in Quebec pushing for another referendum at the same time that Gilles and the Bloc Quebecois held the cards in some sort of coalition government.

Saturday, April 16, 2011

Just a teaser: "Short of a game-changer between now and May 2, Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals will take a beating in Quebec next month." Read the rest here.

While I hope what Chantal wrote accurately reflects the situation in Quebec, I am not counting on it and I am going to work my butt off on the local level to get that majority without having to rely on Quebec. That would be sweet wouldn't it. Also a majority gov't would be much more effective if they had to deal with a PQ gov't at some point in the future, which is something a Bloc backed coalition could never hope to achieve.

We can get it done but it will not be easy as the last couple of weeks are going to be crucial with the desperation of the left/opposition only intensifying as May 2nd approaches. All hands on deck!

Friday, April 15, 2011

Out on the campaign trail last evening in Edmonton Millwoods Beaumont with incumbent Mike Lake and a few volunteers as they door knocked their way through a nasty spring snow storm. Although the heavy wet snow made for some tough going at times, it was clear at the doors that the effort was appreciated.

If you live in the Edmonton Millwoods Beaumont area and have even a couple of hours of free time to volunteer give the campaign office a call @ 780-466-0195, and if you live elsewhere please give your local CPC candidates campaign office a call. Election campaigns are won locally and on the ground. Any help that you can offer will be greatly appreciated.

Thursday, April 14, 2011

For Michael Ignatieff, for today at least, it is the UN if necessary, but not necessarily the UN.

Does Michael Ignatieff want to give away our sovereignty by letting the UN dictate where and when Canada's armed forces may be used?

As usual it is hard to tell because one day Ignatifeff says one thing and the next day it is something else entirely.

Yesterday Michael Ignatieff said the following in the French language debate: “The Canadian army must never be used outside the country without the authorization of the UN,” but today he seems to be backpedaling somewhat.

He wants us to trust him to be our PM, but honestly how can we when his positions seem to shift around depending on what day it is. Take the following quote as an example: “Well, the UN screwed up in Rwanda, it screwed up in Bosnia — it screws up most of the time,” Ignatieff is quoted as saying in a Maclean’s magazine article in June, 2003. “The United Nations is a messy, wasteful, log-rolling organization.” (must have been a Tuesday) But we are now to forget that he ever spoke those words and let that same messy, wasteful, log rolling organization that screws up most of the time, decide when and where our armed forces be used.

Does anyone really know what this guy honestly believes or where he stands?

Michael Ignatieff: "Politics is theatre. It is part of the job to pretend to have emotions that you do not actually feel."

Denise Verreault, campaign co-chair for the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada has abandoned the Liberals and announced that she is supporting PM Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada. (link, link translated,)

From the Globe and MailHer decision to support the Conservatives sent a clear message to voters in the region that when it comes to jobs and investments the Conservatives still carry a great deal more weight than Mr. Duceppe’s promise to defend their interests. And that message alone may be enough for the Conservatives to hold-on to the seats they have in Quebec to help them in their quest for a majority government.

A collapse of what is left of Liberal support in Quebec, or just Quebec realizing that it is better on the inside of government than the outside? Either way, in Quebec I am starting to see shades of 1984 and Mulroney.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

If you were charged with an offence and at your trial you noticed that your accuser was the foreman on your jury, which was made up entirely of his relatives and friends, do you believe that you would get a fair trial and that justice would honestly be served in your case?

That could never happen in Canada you say?

Well it did happen, and it happened in the House of Commons. The only real difference is that in the H of C that jury foreman, the same guy who made the accusations in the first place, had the power to whip the jury on the verdict vote?

I am of course writing about the contempt of Parliament charges which brought down the Government. The opposition made the contempt accusations, they formed the jury, and that jury was, in the most unjust and undemocratically way possible, WHIPPED into voting on what was essentially the verdict. Not exactly as fair and as 'democratic' as the opposition is spinning it as the entire process was rigged from the start entire to get a result they wanted.

Parliament didn't speak; Ignatieff, Layton and Duceppe were the ones doing the talking as they took away the choice of elected representatives to speak for themselves and their constituents on a something that should always be above petty politics. Just having them think otherwise is more than enough reason not to vote for any of them or their parties, and reason why we need to work for a strong conservative majority.

Time to stop the games. Parliament is to there serve Canadians, and not political parties and the opportunists that run them.

Sunday, April 10, 2011

The Liberal Party of Canada, who are trying to convince you that they can form a government, have decided to postpone their June 2011 party convention presumably because it is too hard for them to run an election campaign and a convention at the same time.

Yet the Conservative Party of Canada seem to have no problems with running a government, an election campaign and planning a June 2011 convention at the same time.

Thursday, April 07, 2011

The Liberals position on an IPOD tax is a bit shaky to say the least. They currently claim that they do not support one but...

On April 14, 2010 a vote was held in the House of Commons:

Pursuant to Standing Order 66(2), the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Mrs. Lavallée (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert), seconded by Mr. Pomerleau (Drummond), — That the First Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, presented on Wednesday, March 17, 2010, be concurred in.

The vote carried: YEAS: 156, NAYS: 137

And what exactly was the "First Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage" that they were voting on?

BTW From the Liberal Platform: “Liberals have worked to pass effective copyright legislation, including a private copying compensation fund instead of any new tax on consumers”.

A 'private copying compensation fund'? And how exactly is that going to be funded my flip flopping Liberal friends? They may not call it an IPOD tax but I somehow doubt that we are going to get away without it costing us more in one way or another.

Tuesday, April 05, 2011

Is the Liberal plan for an open competition for jet fighters to replace the aging CF-18 rigged before it even begins? I believe that the evidence suggests that it is. Read on.

Some background and much needed clarity:( because some seem to believe that the LPC will NOT be buying jets)

The Liberal plan is indeed to purchase new fighter jets to replace the CF-18. From Liberal.ca:A future Liberal government will not proceed with the government acquisition process to purchase untendered F-35 stealth fighters, at a cost of $16 billion. Instead, Liberals will hold an open competition to replace Canada’s CF-18s based on clear and publicly disclosed foreign and defence policy requirements.

So in spite of all of the spin heard from the Liberals such as "vets not jets", “we choose families, not fighter jets,” "family care not fighter jets"the reality is that the Liberal Party of Canada intend to buy new jet fighters to replace the Cf-18.So both the current government and the Liberals are planning to replace the Cf-18; the difference comes in that the Liberals are claiming that they would hold an open competition for the replacements and not necessarily go with the F-35.Michael Ignatieff: "a future Liberal government will cancel the F-35 stealth fighter deal and hold an open competition to replace Canada’s CF-18s."

While an open competition may sound like a good idea the current requirements from the Department of National Defence would disqualify every other possible aircraft in a competition other than F-35 because of its stealth abilities. (Kevin Page PBO report link PDF) "First and foremost, the proposed acquisition must satisfy the DND's Statement of Requirements. The PBO has been provided with and has reviewed the relevant Statement of Requirements. The F-35 is the only strike/fighterjetthat can meet the specifications contained in this document as written." Even some Liberals agree that the F-35 is the only fighter for Canada.

But lets put the discussion on the need for a competition aside for a moment and look at what the Liberals claim will be the result of such a competition. They will save us money and they will take that money and apply it to other programs:
“If the government were to hold an open competition, they could guarantee the maximum number of jobs in the Canadian aerospace industry while saving limited government funds that would be better spent easing the economic strain on hard-pressed middle-class families.”

“Liberals would rather save money by opening the contract to competition, freeing up funds to support hundreds of thousands of Canadian families who are caring for sick or aging loved ones with our $1-billion Family Care Plan,” concluded Mr. LeBlanc.

At a MINIMUM it would cost us exactly the same amount as the Conservative replacement plan, but could very likely end up costing us much more due to all of the delays and us jumping into a program late into the game. Either way no money could possibly be saved by having a competition.

So I have to ask. How is it possible for the Liberals to be able to claim that they will save money on a replacement fighter jet program, going so far as to have already delegated those 'savings' to pay for other programs in their platform, before any competition has even taken place and of course not knowing which aircraft will be chosen?

The answer is simple. The competition has already been rigged and the F-35 has lost before the competition has even started.

Related: Here is what one Liberal MP had to say on the F-35. Tell me if you think she sounds the least bit interested in a fair and open competition to find the best plane for our military:

Alexandra Mendes: "Mr. Speaker, I will start by acknowledging that I do not think my hon. colleague is an expert on the matter. I will just say that there are a lot of other planes that our air force could use and should use. We do not need stealth airplanes. Canada is a peaceful country. We certainly do not need those kinds of planes."

Sorry Alexandra but I prefer to let the experts in our military decide what their needs are and not the Liberal Party who are more interested in buying votes with suspect spending schemes than they are in the well being of our military.

News Links

Getting it Done

BT Site of the week

Yes I do know that Ardvark is not the correct spelling, but it would take too long to explain.

Copyrighted material used by this not for profit site is done so under the 'fair dealing' provisions of the Canadian Copyright Act for the purposes of criticism, review and/or news reporting, with links to the original material provided whenever possible.